High Court of Karnataka Circuit · 2012
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Mar 2012
- Bench
- DILIP B BHOSALE
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXII r. 10
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. I have perused the Impugned order, more particularly, paragraph 12 thereof. For the reasons recorded in the said paragraph, the Court beiow has rightiy rejected the 4 application. No error of Iawarranting interference by this Court In writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the…
Judgment
SMT.MAYAWA Wf0 MAYAPPA KAMBLI, AGE: 50 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RIO: AKKIMARADDI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PtTITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY ThE LEARNED FAST TRACK JUDGE, JAMAKHANDI, AT NO.32/2011 DATED:24/03/2012, VIDE ANNEXURE-E. JAMAKHANDI R.A. IN THIS WRIT Pt iii sON COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ThE COURT MADE ThE FOLLOWING: 3 PC: This writ petition is directed against the order dated
24.03.20 12 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamkhandl, on an application (IA-Ill), in R.A.No.32/2011, filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking their Impleadment as respondent Nos.3 and 4 at the stage of final decree proceedings.
The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintIffs for partition and separate possession of their share. The suit was decreed on 18.08.2009. During the pendency of final decree proceedings, the petitioners purchased undivided share of respondent No.7 In the joint family properties knowing fully well about the final decree proceedings, and thereafter flied an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
I have perused the Impugned order, more particularly, paragraph 12 thereof. For the reasons recorded in the said paragraph, the Court beiow has rightiy rejected the 4 application. No error of Iawarranting interference by this Court In writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in my opinion, is made by the court below in passing the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismisseçL-, sd/a JUDGE jm/ I
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXII r. 10.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 24 Mar 2012. The bench was DILIP B BHOSALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.